The provisional government that was set up to replace the Czar allowed Lenin and other exiled leaders back into Russia, much to their own demise. But what if they kept him in exile? Would the revolution have had a similar outcome? What do you think?

"To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
-Sun Tzu

zhalasta wrote:The provisional government that was set up to replace the Czar allowed Lenin and other exiled leaders back into Russia, much to their own demise. But what if they kept him in exile? Would the revolution have had a similar outcome? What do you think?

Soviets were for free elections (I mean free elections in the soviets, democracy is their base system), and people were for SR for they kept it (among other reasons).
Also forbidding a 'revolutionary' party which is for participating in the so-loved-by-SR parliament elections, would cost the SR very much, and could give the so 'bolsheviks' more weight in the soviets (the true power before Lenin cheated it) than their 20% from parliament elections.
Also Lenin, exiled or not, would succeed in entering Russia and would steal the power with more people support.
That's I think what could have happened: the same, with less support for SR, for mainly sooner joining anarchists and green instead.

ERISS wrote:Soviets were for free elections (I mean free elections in the soviets, democracy is their base system), and people were for SR for they kept it (among other reasons).Also forbidding a 'revolutionary' party which is for participating in the so-loved-by-SR parliament elections, would cost the SR very much, and could give the so 'bolsheviks' more weight in the soviets (the true power before Lenin cheated it) than their only 10% from parliament elections.Also Lenin, exiled or not, would succeed in entering Russia and would steal the power with more people support.That's I think what could have happened: the same, with less support for SR, for mainly sooner joining anarchists and green instead.

Good point. But hypothetically, if they had somehow managed to keep Lenin out of Russia (or eliminate him by other means) then, after the Civil War, assuming the soviets still emerged victorious, I think in the aftermath the soviets would have more say in the government instead of Lenin having taken advantage of them to put his himself and his party in dictatorial rule, and maybe the Kronstadt rebellion would not have occurred.

"To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

zhalasta wrote: if they had somehow managed to keep Lenin out of Russia (or eliminate him by other means) then, after the Civil War, assuming the soviets still emerged victorious, I think in the aftermath the soviets would have more say in the government instead of Lenin having taken advantage of them to put his himself and his party in dictatorial rule, and maybe the Kronstadt rebellion would not have occurred.

Without Lenin, the bolsheviks would still being a small party (10%), and I don't think they had another so brilliant politician able to take the power.
(Lenin was a genius, so opportunistic: as he couldn't be elected in a parliament, he used the soviet power (that he was spitting on before), and crafted a parliament using it to better kill the soviets: he couldn't be elected in a bourgeois republic, so he crafted one for himself! Stalin took the sit thenafter)
Without Lenin, Russia would be SR, and slowly would kill the soviets too: soviets can't survive in a true State, as a state (it's head) want to decide (a State can not be a democracy). Lately SR would too do a cheka to control people and the soviets.
I think Russia could take the France way after revolution. Or maybe soviets go the anarchist way and decide to overthrow themselves the government, and go for being a confederation, a very true United Socialist Soviet Republic in the name this time!(?)

Yeah, since soviets don't really have a large official role in central government (as say, Regional Representatives like Senators do) it would be hard for them to hold onto power, even without the Bolshevik rule.

"To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

zhalasta wrote: hypothetically, if they had somehow managed to keep Lenin out of Russia (or eliminate him by other means)

July 1917, Kerensky government made bolsheviks under arrest, but IIRC protests (including menshevik Martov) liberated them.

===============================
Also, "in July 1917 when the Congress of Soviets was dominated by the vacillating Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries, Lenin had thought of abandoning the slogan "all power to the soviets" in favour of an open demand for "all power to the Bolshevik Party" " French political journal, Economies et societes, cahiers de l'ISMEA, Paris, serie S, Number 18, April-May 1976 issue

"(The Bolsheviks) determined to hold on to power, while still wishing to be regarded as democrats. Hence Lenin proclaimed that the soviet system was a higher form of democracy than the "bourgeois" parliamentary system.

Martov knew this to be hypocrisy. Lenin favoured the soviet rather than the parliamentary system because he knew that he could get a majority under the former but not the latter" [for Lenin allured the soviets with his new (he was, bolshevik, from the same Social-Democrat party as menshevik Martov before splitting) pro-soviets slogans, adapted from anarchist ones.]

I think the main point to understand here is the differentiation made between parliamentary or bourgeois representative democracy on the one hand, and proletarian or participatory democracy on the other. The Bolsheviks, including Lenin, were orthodox Marxists and believed that capitalist forms of parliamentary democracy (e.g. Constituent Assembly) should be superseded by socialist forms of proletarian democracy (i.e. soviets). This was what the revolution was about. Lenin didn't "steal" anything and he realised that the fate of the workers' and peasants' revolution in Russia was inextricably linked to the fate of workers' movement elsewhere in Europe, particularly in Germany. Once the European revolution went down to defeat (e.g. in Germany and Hungary) then the revolution in Russia was completely isolated and it succumbed to Stalinist counter-revolution by 1929. The show trials of the 1930s saw the final elimination of the revolutionary wing of the Russian Communist Party inside the Soviet Union - Trotsky was murdered while in exile in Mexico in 1940.

stockwellpete wrote: the main point to understand here is the differentiation made between parliamentary or bourgeois representative democracy on the one hand, and proletarian or participatory democracy on the other.

Yes there's a difference: Bourgeois republic is already own by the bourgeois, but in socialist republic the socialists become the new bourgeois.There was a railroad russian joke about that, where the bolsheviks in their private train were called 'the people', and the people in cold crowded train called themselves 'the masters'... People knew they finally just changed the master, before Stalin could use the party like the party used the soviets.

The Bolsheviks, including Lenin, were orthodox Marxists and believed that capitalist forms of parliamentary democracy (e.g. Constituent Assembly) should be superseded by socialist forms of proletarian democracy (i.e. soviets). This was what the revolution was about. Lenin didn't "steal" anything

Nope, he didn't believe this: He wrote it without telling that the soviets had to be superseded by the bolshevik party, what he did using the tcheka.

Once the European revolution went down to defeat then the revolution in Russia was completely isolated and it succumbed to Stalinist counter-revolution by 1929.

Yes, but he continued what Lenin and Trotsky did: Soviets, deceived by Lenin suddenly hailing them, participated in the counter-revolution when they agreed gathering their power under the bolshevik control.

ERISS wrote:Yes there's a difference: Bourgeois republic is already own by the bourgeois, but in socialist republic the socialists become the new bourgeois.

The hollowing out of the soviets during the Russian civil war was caused by economic dislocation due to the fighting - the Russian working class was largely atomised - it was not a product of Bolshevik doctrine. Stalinism was also not the product of Bolshevik doctrine, which was internationalist in orientation - Stalinism was predicated on "socialism in one country" (1925) and was a complete betrayal of the October revolution. So I am someone who sees discontinuity between Lenin/Trotsky and Stalin, not continuity. Stalin was no longer a marxist by 1929, he had become a Great Russian tyrant, just like the Tsars really.

zhalasta wrote:The provisional government that was set up to replace the Czar allowed Lenin and other exiled leaders back into Russia, much to their own demise. But what if they kept him in exile? Would the revolution have had a similar outcome? What do you think?

Well, it was the Germans who facilitated Lenin's return to Russia. At that time there was no real reason for the Russian government to prevent him returning as socialists (Mensheviks and SR's) were in the government and were also dominating the Soviets. At that time all the socialist factions (including the Bolsheviks) agreed that Russia should go through a prolonged phase of capitalist development and that socialists should operate as a loyal "left opposition" in a bourgeois Parliament. It was only after Lenin was back in Russia that he launched his April Theses - and then a debate started within the Bolshevik faction about whether socialism was on the agenda in Russia in 1917. It is a very interesting question as to what might have happened if Lenin had been kept out of Russia by the Germans because it is quite possible that the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks could have been reconciled during the course of 1917 without his intervention. Maybe Kerensky would have lasted longer? Or maybe Kornilov would have been able to overthrow him?

stockwellpete wrote:The hollowing out of the soviets during the Russian civil war was caused by economic dislocation due to the fighting - the Russian working class was largely atomised - it was not a product of Bolshevik doctrine.

Yes, soviets were in bad shapes before the bolsheviks coup (however in the whole they had become the greater power), Lenin felt the need of unity of the soviets and told them the bolsheviks would bring it to them. It was appealling to soviets as this power way was the easy and speedy one way, instead of the anarchist 'do it by yourself'. But afterward the surviving soviets became bolshevik soviet, as no longer the people soviets were allowed.

Stalinism was also not the product of Bolshevik doctrine, which was internationalist in orientation - Stalinism was predicated on "socialism in one country" (1925) and was a complete betrayal of the October revolution. So I am someone who sees discontinuity between Lenin/Trotsky and Stalin, not continuity. Stalin was no longer a marxist by 1929, he had become a Great Russian tyrant, just like the Tsars really.

Stalin/stalinism was the continuity of marxism: Even Trotsky wrote it in his "Our Political Tasks (1904)" book (last chapter of Part II), 30 years after Bakunin predicted this substitutionism already, but Trotsky was targeting Lenin in his book. But Lenin needed Trotsky, and offered him the army power, so Trotsky omited what he predicted (or didn't care for he thought becoming himself the stalin he predicted).

Trotsky(1904) wrote:"(...) the Party organization “substituting” itself for the Party, the Central Committee substituting itself for the Party organization, and finally the dictator substituting himself for the Central Committee (...)

Victor Serge - ‘It is often said that the germ of all Stalinism was in Bolshevism at its beginning. Well, I have no objection. Only, Bolshevism also contained many other germs – a mass of other germs – and those who lived through the enthusiasm of the first years of the first victorious revolution ought not to forget it. To judge the living man by the death germs which the autopsy reveals in a corpse – and which he may have carried with him since his birth – is this very sensible?’

stockwellpete wrote:Victor Serge - Bolshevism also contained many other germs – a mass of other germs – and those who lived through the enthusiasm of the first years of the first victorious revolution ought not to forget it. To judge the living man by the death germs which the autopsy reveals in a corpse – and which he may have carried with him since his birth – is this very sensible?’

Yes, he find excuses to being a Bolshevik, leaving the party when Stalin took the command. Victor went to hope that the end could justify the means, but he quit when this mean could be his own death. Others, better anarchists, even didn't want to be bolshevik, judging it while alive with Lenin and Trotsky.
EDIT: Ok, Serge denounced the "degeneration"* of the Soviet state and of the Communist Internationale, and once expelled from the Party he decided to even leave the country but couldn't for some years (four of his familly members, who didn't migrate, died).
* He see what he helped to build, that is only 'degeneration' for Trotsky who miss the first place he was aiming (until his death he mourned the stalin seat).

Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:Interesting. So Girl Masturbation is different than male masturbation? I'm gonna need to take some notes from your wisdom sir.

What do you mean? What do you not understand? Or what is the matter where you think it's pointless so you need to insult so heavily? I'm sure there something interesting to say beyond your abusive way.

stockwellpete wrote:Well, it was the Germans who facilitated Lenin's return to Russia. At that time there was no real reason for the Russian government to prevent him returning as socialists (Mensheviks and SR's) were in the government and were also dominating the Soviets. At that time all the socialist factions (including the Bolsheviks) agreed that Russia should go through a prolonged phase of capitalist development and that socialists should operate as a loyal "left opposition" in a bourgeois Parliament.

Russian provisionnal governement, who was to continue the WWI with the Entente, had a real good reason to prevent Lenin return. The main reason why the Germans helped Lenin to reach Russia is that he was one of the very rare European Socialist who was for ending the WWI with a White Peace. The aim of the Germans was that Russia leave the war the sooner the better so that they could move their troops from East to West front, and Lenin political plan was to remove Russia from that war as soon as possible when back in Russia because he know that he will get a lots of popular support for that. The German plan finally did succeed (but partially, because they chose to remove not enough troops from the east because they wanted to plunder it, and so they miss them in Western front).

stockwellpete wrote:It was only after Lenin was back in Russia that he launched his April Theses - and then a debate started within the Bolshevik faction about whether socialism was on the agenda in Russia in 1917. It is a very interesting question as to what might have happened if Lenin had been kept out of Russia by the Germans because it is quite possible that the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks could have been reconciled during the course of 1917 without his intervention. Maybe Kerensky would have lasted longer? Or maybe Kornilov would have been able to overthrow him?

I don't think so. The main concrete political difference at this stage between Menshevik or SR and the Bolsheviks was the WWI question (and the second, the immediate share of the lands). The Bolshevik party and some SR was for give up the WWI with the war goals and alliances defined by the Tsar in the past, the others was to continue a war they didn't declared.

The winner of the next revolution was to be the party which gather the most popular support so which was to stop the war and share the lands of the nobility right now, not the one who was for a bourgeois "Constituant Assembly" or a popular "Pan-soviets Assembly". Those 2 assemblies was anyway representative assembly by elections, so it was politically the same system. The first over-represent the bourgeoisie, the second over-represent the proletarians. But it was the same system. It was not a democracy (with randomly chosen citizens for the People's Assembly like Athenians), and not decentralized autonomous local assemblies (Anarchists project at this period).

It is written that divisional commander Semyon Aralov were asked about his epaulette during the visit in Turkey. It is written as soldiers try to get rid of hiérarchie even under conservative commander Kazım Karabekir. Soviet style uniforms were popular between soldiers and It is written that letters between Karabekir and Halil Pasha they use the word 'comrade' between each other..

andatiep wrote:Russian provisionnal governement, who was to continue the WWI with the Entente, had a real good reason to prevent Lenin return. The main reason why the Germans helped Lenin to reach Russia is that he was one of the very rare European Socialist who was for ending the WWI with a White Peace. The aim of the Germans was that Russia leave the war the sooner the better so that they could move their troops from East to West front, and Lenin political plan was to remove Russia from that war as soon as possible when back in Russia because he know that he will get a lots of popular support for that. The German plan finally did succeed (but partially, because they chose to remove not enough troops from the east because they wanted to plunder it, and so they miss them in Western front).

But the Bolshevik party did not oppose continued Russian participation in the war between the February revolution and Lenin's return in April 1917. The Bolshevik party was moving to the right at that time under the leadership of Kamenev and Stalin. In an article in Pravda in the middle of March, Kamenev wrote that " The war goes on. The great Russian Revolution did not interrupt it. And no one entertains the hope that it will end tomorrow or the day after . . ." The editors of the paper (Stalin and Kamenev among them) also suppressed four of the five "Letters From Afar" sent to them by Lenin. There were even discussions about the Bolsheviks merging with the Mensheviks! This is why I am suggesting that the Provisional government were not so concerned about Lenin's return. It was because the Bolsheviks were moving towards a more conciliatory position with both the Mensheviks and the Provisional government. Had they been really concerned about him they would have arrested him as soon as he got off the train.

Last edited by stockwellpete on Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Had I not been present in 1917 in Petersburg, the October revolution would still have taken place – on the condition that Lenin was present and in command. If neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petersburg, there would have been no October revolution: the leadership of the Bolshevik Party would have prevented it from occurring – of this I have not the slightest doubt! If Lenin had not been in Petersburg, I doubt whether I could have managed to conquer the resistance of the Bolshevik leaders ... But I repeat, granted the presence of Lenin the October revolution would have been victorious anyway."

P.S. As 2017 is the centenary of the revolution I am back playing the game again!

stockwellpete wrote:Long after the revolution when Trotsky was in exile, he wrote:"If neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petersburg, there would have been no October revolution:

It was about Lenin alone, Trotsky wants to make us believe he might alone have decided this coup. Trosky was not as a political genius than Lenin (if he were, he would be later in place of Stalin..).

the leadership of the Bolshevik Party would have prevented it from occurring – of this I have not the slightest doubt!"

It was Lenin who had prevented it in the past, so the Party was following his habit against a coup (he didn't want to support workers if it did not give a better way to the Party). So, yes, only Lenin could change this own habit. Lenin was always making the Party to change direction to opposite from what they used to say or do, he was the greater opportunistic.

2017 is the centenary of the revolution I am back playing the game again!

Report about what could be improved, by chance it may be usefull in future.

ERISS wrote: It was about Lenin alone, Trotsky wants to make us believe he might alone have decided this coup. Trosky was not as a political genius than Lenin (if he were, he would be later in place of Stalin..)

No, I think he is saying the opposite. Trotsky did not think that the revolution would have occurred without Lenin because only he was able to win the arguments with the more conservative sections of the Bolshevik party. This was demonstrated in April 1917 when Lenin returned to Russia and found himself very isolated with his "April Theses". Within a month he had started to win important votes in the party and party policy was shifted away from the older idea of "democratic dictatorship of workers and peasantry" towards the newer idea of "permanent revolution" i.e. that the working class should strive for a second revolution in order to begin building a socialist society.

I cannot accept at all that October 1917 was a coup. The Bolshevik party was growing very rapidly in the second half of 1917 and the Bolsheviks were winning votes in the Soviets and massively increasing their representation there. Regiments were also pledging their support for Bolshevism, particularly during the failed attempt at a coup by Kornilov in August/September. Martov, the leader of the Mensheviks at the time of the October revolution, wrote to Axelrod, "Understand, please, that before us after all is a victorious uprising of the proletariat – almost the entire proletariat supports Lenin and expects its social liberation from the uprising."

It was Lenin who had prevented it in the past, so the Party was following his habit against a coup (he didn't want to support workers if it did not give a better way to the Party). So, yes, only Lenin could change this own habit. Lenin was always making the Party to change direction to opposite from what they used to say or do, he was the greater opportunistic.

Yes, Lenin had argued effectively in July that an insurrection then in Petrograd would have been premature because the party and class in other parts of the country were not ready to struggle for power. So the party was forced onto the defensive and many of its members were imprisoned. I cannot accept that Lenin was motivated by opportunism though. He was the leading theorist in the party by a long way for much of 1917 (until Trotsky joined the party in the summer of 1917) and his strength was to analyse the rapidly changing circumstances around him and provide political leadership to the Bolshevik party so that it remained relevant to the working class. He was often bitterly opposed by other members of the party (e.g. April Theses) and was often defeated in votes but his persistence often meant that he eventually prevailed. None of this was done for personal gain, his sole motivation was to strengthen the revolutionary movement so that it could eventually overthrow the bourgeois government.

Report about what could be improved, by chance it may be usefull in future.

OK. So the game has not reached the end of its development then? That is good to know. Perhaps I will be able to convince you to replace the word "coup" with "revolution" in the various texts of the game one day!

ERISS wrote:Trotsky wants to make us believe he might alone have decided this coup.

No, I think he is saying the opposite.

Read again what I exactly quoted and wrote. Trotsky wrote "nor I", doing like he might be like Lenin.He wants us to imagine there was a chance he might be a lenin. Stalin really broke his dream lol

I cannot accept at all that October 1917 was a coup. The Bolshevik party was growing very rapidly

It was still a coup, that Lenin feared it was not agreed by people. So he legalized all what was wanted by revolutionnaries, i.e. he wrote this on a paper. To later remove the soviet power (representation, a bourgeois governement crafted by bolsheviks for the soviets, is not power, as the Party decide in the end). As a bolshevik, Lenin had always be against the power of soviets, he suddenly wrote the countrary, for the bolsheviks not be trown away by them. When, after the White threat, soviets wanted to throw the Red state, it was too late.

Lenin was always making the Party to change direction to opposite from what they used to say or do, he was the greater opportunistic.

I cannot accept that Lenin was motivated by opportunism though.

It was not a motivation, its opportunism was a strategy. "The means decide the result": the bolsheviks were to take the power in a bourgeois governement, they didn't believe in the own power of people. But as Lenin saw he was wrong (the soviets grew strong without using the bourgeois power), and he was obsessed by the bourgeois kind of power (the representative government), he could not imagine more than to craft one using the soviets so the bolsheviks take the place of bourgeois.

Report about what could be improved, by chance it may be usefull in future.

So the game has not reached the end of its development then?

I don't know. If you want to end it, you'll have more power to change some words lol.

ERISS wrote: Read again what I exactly quoted and wrote. Trotsky wrote "nor I", doing like he might be like Lenin.He wants us to imagine there was a chance he might be a lenin. Stalin really broke his dream lol

In my original quote Trotsky makes it quite clear that without Lenin he does not think October would have happened - and he says that he did not think that he (himself) would have persuaded them to launch the insurrection if Lenin had not been present. Trotsky was not lacking in self-confidence and many people felt he was somewhat arrogant but knew that the other Bolshevik leaders would not have respected him as much as Lenin, not least because he had only been in the Bolshevik party a few months.

It was still a coup, that Lenin feared it was not agreed by people. So he legalized all what was wanted by revolutionnaries, i.e. he wrote this on a paper. To later remove the soviet power (representation, a bourgeois governement crafted by bolsheviks for the soviets, is not power, as the Party decide in the end). As a bolshevik, Lenin had always be against the power of soviets, he suddenly wrote the countrary, for the bolsheviks not be trown away by them. When, after the White threat, soviets wanted to throw the Red state, it was too late.

I am not able to follow your argument very well here and I am not sure which "paper" you are referring to. Lenin was an orthodox Marxists, and Marxism is the theory of working class self-emancipation so Lenin was not opposed to the soviets - he regarded them as organs of working class power.

It was not a motivation, its opportunism was a strategy. "The means decide the result": the bolsheviks were to take the power in a bourgeois governement, they didn't believe in the own power of people. But as Lenin saw he was wrong (the soviets grew strong without using the bourgeois power), and he was obsessed by the bourgeois kind of power (the representative government), he could not imagine more than to craft one using the soviets so the bolsheviks take the place of bourgeois.

We are a very long way apart on this subject, aren't we? Who have you been reading? I read people like Marcel Liebman, Victor Serge, Alfred Rosmer, John Reed, Isaac Deutscher as well as Trotsky and Lenin. I have also read some of the anti-Bolshevik writers like Richard Pipes and Orlando Figes, but I find them fairly dreadful, to be honest.

I don't know. If you want to end it, you'll have more power to change some words lol.

There was a lot of fighting out in the Far East, wasn't there? The Japanese sent a lot of troops via Vladivostock - and the Americans were involved too. Is that covered in the main campaign?

The papers of the written laws, useless as the true law was the Cheka, which had full rights to do as they wanted if it was not displaesing the Party.

Lenin was an orthodox Marxists, and Marxism is the theory of working class self-emancipation so Lenin was not opposed to the soviets - he regarded them as organs of working class power.

He said soviets were thousand more to the left than bolsheviks, and late when he needed them no more he treated their partisants as 'usefull idiots', "leftists".Lenin was against the power of soviets because they were not a party. For Lenin, soviets had to be conquiered by the bolshevik party, by any means necessary, or being destroyed. Soviets are democratic, power of people, not power of a party.

Who have you been reading?

Mainly anarchists. But I read them because since long I was very often said being one, so I was curious about them.Before them I had almost only read encyclopedias!, so my 'anarchism' come first from my 'rationnal' culture, secondly confirmed by the waged work. Anarchist readings explain more or/and better what I already thought.Often I believed I had new ideas, but they were in fact written since long. It was just that anarchists had been forbidden for a century, by usual/Western/liberal or bolshevik/state/Eastern capitalisms.

ERISS wrote:Mainly anarchists. But I read them because since long I was very often said being one, so I was curious about them. Before them I had almost only read encyclopedias!, so my 'anarchism' come first from my 'rationnal' culture, secondly confirmed by the waged work. Anarchist readings explain more or/and better what I already thought.Often I believed I had new ideas, but they were in fact written since long. It was just that anarchists had been forbidden for a century, by usual/Western/liberal or bolshevik/state/Eastern capitalisms.

So you would be a supporter of Makhno at this time then? There is a collection of his writings in the Marxist Internet Archive . . .

stockwellpete wrote:So you would be a supporter of Makhno at this time then?

I would be volountary to continue the WW1 lol! in French Army at Odessa, doing here some propaganda with my collegue soldiers, but I'm not sure I'll deffect to makhnovists (if there's an opportunity), as I would be some suspicious on this movement which was few known. At least, sure I would not fight against them if I'm ordered. Many anarchists did not support makhnovism at this time, for they had better be told of bolshevism. But the more they knew what really was bolshevism, the more they liked makhnovism, but it was too late...I've been used by United Nations in ex-Yugoslavia, april to september 93, in a same way. I didn't see a better way than being volountary in French Army to try to help here.. It may not been very usefull..

Another really interesting "what if" question about Lenin is what if he had lived for another ten or twenty years.

I think we can certainly say that Stalin would definitely not have become leader of the Russian Communist Party and that his policy of "socialism in one country" would not have been adopted. The Russian regime would have retained its revolutionary outlook and this may have had significant impact in the inter-war period, particularly with regards to events in Germany (1923-4) and China (1927). Inside Russia, there would have been no 5 Year plans, no forced collectivisation of agriculture, and no show trials (Trotsky would have stayed in Russia too).

Looking further ahead it might also have meant that Hitler would not have come to power in Germany, because the disastrous policy of Stalin (via the Comintern) that meant social democratic workers and communist workers in Germany were hostile to each other instead of uniting against the Nazis would not have occurred. Of course, no Hitler would have meant no second world war. And finally it would have meant that the Spanish revolution would not have been attacked by Nazi Germany and Italy or strangled by Russian (i.e. Stalinist) intervention, so the outcome might have been very different.

And I say all this as someone who regards social forces as being the key determinant of historical outcomes (from Marx) but it also has to be recognised that some individuals can play critical roles at certain junctures too.

stockwellpete wrote:Another really interesting "what if" question about Lenin is what if he had lived for another ten or twenty years. I think we can certainly say that Stalin would definitely not have become leader of the Russian Communist Party and that his policy of "socialism in one country" would not have been adopted. The Russian regime would have retained its revolutionary outlook and this may have had significant impact in the inter-war period, particularly with regards to events in Germany (1923-4) and China (1927). Inside Russia, there would have been no 5 Year plans, no forced collectivisation of agriculture, and no show trials (Trotsky would have stayed in Russia too).

I don't think so, the difference would be on the Party, it would change nothing for people in Russia or in the world. Stalin did not invente the purges, Lenin and his Cheka made as many deaths than Stalin per year, but Stalin applied them on the party too, not just on others.

social democratic workers and communist workers in Germany were hostile to each other instead of uniting against the Nazis

Yes, but it was not because of Stalin. The stalinists or leninist were few, the communists or said-marxists who left the socialist party were mainly against bolshevism.

no Hitler would have meant no second world war.

There would be another hitler. WW2 is the continuing of WW1 for its very bad 'peace' treaty. Communism is just a pretext.

the Spanish revolution would not have been attacked by Nazi Germany and Italy or strangled by Russian (i.e. Stalinist) intervention,

Stalin did the same in Spain that Trotsky/Lenin did on makhnovists 15 years before. So it would change nothing in Spain: it would be Trotsky, instead of Stalin, against the spanish revolutionnaries.